Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 10, 2001 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 10 3 Kristi Hanson X 10 2 Neil Lingle X 9 4 Richard O'Donnell X 9 2 Chris Van Vliet X 12 1 John Vuksic X 13 0 Also Present: Phil Drell, Planning Director Steve Smith, Planning Manager Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner Jason Finley, Code Compliance Gail Santee, Senior Office Assistant 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 26, 2001 Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to approve the minutes of June 26, 2001. The motion carried with Commissioner Gregory abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 1 fir+ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 7.* CASE NO.: MISC APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KAREN ZAK, 47-916 Silver Spur Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request to install a 6-foot redwood fence along rear property line LOCATION: 47-916 Silver Spur Trail ZONE: R-1 Staff requested and the Commission agreed to hear this case first. Photographs were distributed to show the applicant's rear property line, the adjacent block wall, and the area where the new redwood fence would be erected. The new fence would stand in front of and parallel to the block wall. There is a private easement driveway that serves the 14 property owners running across their rear yards. Under the City's fence regulations this would be characterized as an interior redwood fence. Mr. Drell also distributed a letter received from the Silver Spur Ranchers Association, which noted that the HOA has a restriction on the construction of wood fences. Ms. Susie Moore, a member of the Association and a property owner down the street from Ms. Zak, provided additional pictures of the subject area. She explained that there was an 'alley' that runs behind their properties; Ms. Zak's property is about in the middle. She explained that Ms. Zak wanted to build her redwood fence in front of her backyard neighbor's block wall running parallel to the alley. According to the by-laws, all new construction, including re-construction, of fences must be masonry. Her photos showed landscaping on the applicant's side of the block wall. Ms. Moore stated from her Grant Deed defining the driveway as a "Non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over the northwesterly 14 feet of Lots 1 through 14 inclusive of Silver Spur Ranch ........ In effect, even though the area where the proposed fence is to be constructed, all of those 14 property owners have the right to ingress or egress from their GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES properties. It is not a situation of a fence within her lot. It affects everyone else. Commissioner Vuksic clarified that the easement runs through the back yard so anyone can walk into the back yards. Mr. Drell noted there is another fence on the other side of the driveway, ie, Ms. Zak's backyard is fenced from the driveway and obstructs a view into the alley. All 14 homeowners along the alley have the same situation. They all have enclosed backyards with gates and driveway access into the alley. Mr. Drell asked what would be the purpose of erecting a wood fence in front of the block wall. Ms. Zak stated it was to control her side of the wall. The alley is on her lot which they give each other permission to cross. The owner of the rear block wall, Ms. Blystone, has vandalized Ms. Zak's property numerous times and Ms. Zak just wants to cover the wall and control her side which Ms. Blystone won't allow her to do. Ms. Zak was asked if all of the fencing along the alley fence or block. She distributed photos showing wooden, iron, and block wall fences. Mr. Drell stated, that politics aside, the sole purpose of the issue being before the Commission is covering the block wall by a wooden fence. Ms. Zak stated she had painted her side of the block wall, but Ms. Blystone has re-painted it. She stated Ms. Blystone didn't want them to control their side of the block wall and they want to put in something that they can have control over, ie, painting, planting. Commissioner Lingle asked if she was subject to the CC&Rs and was she aware of the article relating to Article VI I, Section I: "All new construction, including re-construction of wood fences must include walls of masonry construction." She affirmed both. He asked if that Article had been followed by other home owners, to which she responded "no" and distributed photos of wood and iron fences that had been built after that article had been included in the CC&Rs in 1996. Ms. Moore, in turn, stated all the fences that had been constructed since then have had to follow the Article. Commissioner Gregory stated, again politics aside, this issue before the Commission is a request for a wood fence and does that wood fence meet the City's codes. From an esthetic perspective, Commissioner Vuksic felt a block wall was more GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES attractive than a wood fence especially over time. Commissioner O'Donnell, speaking from an esthetic point of view, agreed. However, from a political point of view, this is not a normal interior fence. It is semi-private that others can see it. Therefore, a masonry fence is a better choice. Commissioner Lingle looked at it from two points of view: one of esthetics and one of reality. He felt that if it were permitted by ordinance and beauty being solely from the perspective of the individual, it is her property and she wants a wood fence, he did not have a problem with it. Mr. Drell noted that usually property owners who have a shared wall don't mind allowing their neighbors to paint their side of the wall, which is why this problem doesn't usually come up. If Ms. Zak had the opportunity to paint her side of the block wall, she would have been happy. Unfortunately, she is not being allowed to modify the wall facing her to suit her taste. As an alternative, she has chosen to cover it with wood. She prefers wooden fences and said wooden fences were being put up all over the area. Masonry walls are much more expensive for what she is trying to accomplish. Commissioner Gregory stated if the City said it was OK to put up a wood fence, Ms. Zak has a right, according to the City, to do so. But, if the Silver Spur Ranchers Association has a legal authority to require a fence to be made out of masonry, that is an issue that has to be dealt with them. The proposal meets the City's guidelines and is on her property. The code for a 6'-high redwood fence reads "interior rear and side yard fences not visible from the public right-of-way.." This is a private right-of- way, not a public right-of-way. This is an issue of an association ruling versus a City ruling. The Commission's review of this case is strictly "does it meet the City guidelines" and is it esthetic. Commissioner Vuksic commented the purpose of the Commission was not to just go by City ordinances. It is a subjective body. However, Commissioner Gregory noted it was on private property, there is not a public right-of-way, and it is an unusual situation. Commissioner Vuksic stated he would support the case because it is really up to the association to determine if the fence meets its standards. The City has no other issue with it. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES Prior to making the motion, Commissioner Vuksic asked if we knew what the fence would look like. It would be a typical 1 x6 vertical redwood fence with 44 posts with 2x4 cross members. The finished side will face the alley. Mr. Drell stated the ideal solution was for the two property owners to be adults and agree on the common use of the surface of the block wall that serves both property owners. Then, there is no reason for the wood fence to be built. The part that Ms. Zak looks at could be painted. Ms. Zak agreed that would be the best solution. Commissioner Lingle stated another solution would be to let the landscape mature as it looked very nice. Ms. Zak stated Ms. Blystone has been coming out and removing the landscaping despite the fact it is on her property. She has already removed a decorative fence that Ms. Zak had installed. If Ms. Blystone would agree to allow the Zak's to maintain their side as they have for 20 years or they will put up a wooden fence. Legally, Ms. Blystone has no more access than anyone else to get into someone else's backyard. Commissioner O'Donnell encouraged the two participants to try to resolve this. The approval of this fence is unnecessary. It is being approvied because Ms. Zak had the right to ask for it. He hoped they wouldn't have to go to that extent. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to approve the 6-foot high redwood fence as submitted stating it was in a common, but private driveway at the rear property line and meets City Ordinance 25.56.195. D2b. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 5 srrw ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES 1. CASE NO.:SA 01-75 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Pines to Palms Canvas, 69- 640 Sugarloaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage for Canyon Road Collection LOCATION: 73-425 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 The applicant described the project as a 20-foot by 36-inch white rectangular sign with black lettering. The Commission was unsure of what the building looked like and asked for photos and more details on the letter style. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to continue the case to allow the applicant to provide photos of the building and more details about the signage. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO.: SA 01-76 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): Palms to Pines Canvas, 69- 640 Sugarloaf Avenue, #69, Mt. Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning with signage for Feathered Nest LOCATION: 73-405 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 The Commission was provided with colored drawings and plans for new business signage for Feathered Nest's front and back entrances. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approve the awning and signage as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 6 o ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES 3. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 99-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): WILLIAM G. SMITH, FOREMOST BUSINESS PARKS, 25351 Alicia Parkway, Suite A, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LEE ROTSHECK, Development Manager, Mammoth Equities LLC, 20532 El Toro Road, #302, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 BEVERLY RUTHERFORD, Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings for self-storage facility LOCATION: 78-001 Country Club Drive ZONE: PC-2 (FCO) Working drawings for the Foremost self-storage facility were provided to the Commission for review. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to approved the working drawings as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO.: PP 00-22 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CURTIS R. SHUPE, 73255 El Paseo, Suite 15, Palm Desert, CA 92260 for MS. ELLEN RABB, 73-005 Shadow Mountain Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of working drawings of 4-unit single-story apartment building LOCATION: 73-815 Shadow Mountain Drive ZONE: R-3 3,000 The Commission had given previous approval to this case. Action: No action necessary. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES 5. CASE NO.: SA 01-46 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NANCY COBB, DGI SIGNS, INC., 77- 720 Springfield Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of revised monument signage at Cam's Corner LOCATION: 74-478 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1 Per the applicant's request, the Commission continued the case. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle, to continue the case per the applicant request. Motion carried 6-0. 6. CASE NO.: MISC 01-09 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MICHAEL HURST, ARCHITECT, 73-625 Hwy, Suite F, Palm Desert, CA 92260 MILO W. MALOTTE, 42-280 Wisconsin Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of facade remodel including rear patio and roof plans for the Red Barn LOCATION: 73-290 Hwy. 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Hurst provided the Commission with roof and patio elevations as requested during its last meeting. The patio will have a slump stone 6- foot garden wall along the sides and at the rear. Along the outside of the rear wall, will be a 3' foot high slump stone planter. There will be about 12-18" of open area between the top of the wall and under the patio's roof. Mr. Drell pointed out that the windows and shutters shown above the door on the front elevation do not currently exist. There is an awning there which will be replaced by the windows and shutters. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 8 *400, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10,2001 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the first version, side view, indicated a 2x12 rim joist that goes around. However, the new elevation doesn't indicate that it is going around. The fascia is 2x6. He asked how well the 2x would hold up and commented that it didn't look like it was finished because it looks like 2x framing. Full dimension 3x12 would be preferable. Commissioner Vuksic stated the overall concept was fine. He just wanted to make sure there was enough richness to it. The patio posts are 4x4 inch tube steel located inside the patio block wall. He would like to see them wrapped in something to make them seem more substantial. Since there is no plaster or stucco on the building, he asked if they could be related to the block wall or make them look like a masonry column with concrete. Another suggestion was to box them in wood to match the rest of the building siding with a diameter of 12-inch square. The Commission agreed that 6x6 wood posts would be easier than boxing and would look better. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how the proposed patio's mansard roof terminates against the adjacent building as it looks like there is an open space. Mr. Hurst responded that it is stepped, but it is not going to be open. Mr. Hurst stated they were eliminating the "Little Switzerland" fascia and replacing it with a straight 3x fascia all the way around. Staff will work with applicant and the City Landscape Manager about which plants to put in the front and rear planters and any other landscaping requirements. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the re-model subject to Commission comments: 1) using 3x12 rim joists and fasica, 2) either boxing in steel patio posts in 12x12 wooden boxes or using 6x6 wooden posts, 3) work with City Landscape Manager for planter materials and any other landscaping requirements. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES 7. CASE NO.: SA 01-77 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOYCE WAYMAN, 73-290 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of new business awning and signage for Hartman Jewelers and Grand Slam Gallery LOCATION: 73-290 El Paseo, Units 1 & 2 ZONE: C-1 Staff requested and the Commission approved the addition of this case to the agenda. Due to the construction of the building to the east, the front of the applicant's building is less visible from the street as it sits back further from the street than the buildings on either side. The applicant is proposing two post-mounted marquee awnings from the building's face to the curb. The request is to provide identity for the businesses. There are two retail units within the building and for symmetry purposes, the applicant feels two awnings would work better than one. The awning fabric is to be white with black lettering. Mr. Walter Hartman stated the building was built in 1981. The reason for the dual awnings is that the building is a split building with an atrium walkway that goes from El Paseo to the rear parking. Hartman Jewelers is on the east side of the atrium and Grand Slam Gallery is on the west side. Visibility is blocked from both the east and west due to the buildings on either side, ie, out of sight, out of mind. Some of their customers are having a problem finding them because they are less visible now. He presented a binder with a list and photos of approximately 13 neighbors along El Paseo who have to-the-curb awnings with their appropriate addresses and business names. Commissioner Gregory noted that several years ago, the Commission decided to allow one awning per building simply because everyone might want a marquee awning because they have more impact than standard awnings. In an effort to allow marquee awnings, but avoid having too many of them, a general understanding of one per building was arrived at. However, because of how this building is set back, it is GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES obvious that some presence is needed at the street. Mr. Hartman noted that because of the atrium, it was almost like having two separate buildings. In fact, it looks like two different buildings joined by a roof line. Mr. George Anich, Grand Slam Gallery, stated that there was an almost identical situation across the street with "Michael Scott" and "The Store Keeper". The distance between those two awnings is about the same as this proposal's. In viewing the photos, the Commission felt there was more space between these sets of awnings. The palms at the front of the building limit some of the options for awning design. Mr. Hartman noted if the center section of the proposed awning was too much, it could be eliminated while still keeping the two separate marquee awnings. Commissioner Van Vliet stated his problem with the two marquee awnings is their being too close together. He asked if there was some other solution other than using marquee awnings by doing something with the building, perhaps by bringing the building's face out. Commissioner Gregory asked about putting up a substantial sized single marquee incorporating the palm trees within its design. Commissioner O'Donnell thought the ultimate solution was not an awning, rather an architectural solution. Based on photographs, he understands the visibility problem. He suggested bringing the storefront out closer to the street and at the same time, creating greater sign bands and more mass. Smaller awnings could be added. The building could come out at least to the face of the adjacent buildings. Mr. Hartman asked if they couldn't bring the marquee awnings to the curb, could they be brought out to the sidewalk. The awnings give visibility and in addition they provide shade for the front windows where products are displayed. Bringing the storefront out means substantial additional dollars, but does not solve the problem of shading the front windows. However, a small awning could be put over but then he has the cost of extending the building and adding awnings. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission its opinion of several options: 1) the double awnings as proposed, 2) having two non- marquee, non-posted type awnings covering the windows of each business, or 3) a single marquee with posts. Commissioner Hanson stated the architecture of the building had not been taken into account which also creates a problem. The architecture is very angular while the awnings are rounded. They might re-consider those issues. Mr. Hartman responded that the architecture of the adjacent building to the GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocsVAGMINWR010710.min 11 `1lirrr' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES east has arches. Since the applicant's building is inset, the rounded awnings flow with the arches of the adjacent, more visible building. Commissioner Hanson stated they shouldn't try to fit in with the adjacent building, they should fit in with their own building to stand out. Commissioner Hanson re-stated some of the direction that had been expressed: 1) Three awnings were not acceptable, 2) Two awnings out to the street is not acceptable, and 3) Designing an awning to fit with the adjacent building was not acceptable. It should be designed to go with the applicant's building. One awning could be acceptable if it were properly done. The Commission agrees that something needs to be done, but it needs to work for the building and needs to work for the rules that have been established for the City which is one awning per building unless it was done for a specific reason at one time. Commissioner Gregory stated that should the applicant disagree with the Commissions recommendations and decision, they could appeal to the City Council. Mr. Hartman explained it was a help rather than a hindrance to have the awning to the street because it will provide shade for pedestrians. A small awning may look right, but doesn't shade anything. Commissioner O'Donnell re-stated that an architectural solution should not be ruled out especially when the City has $25,000 in matching funds for store owners. Maybe a combination of some architectural treatment and a reasonable proposal for an awning might be the way to go. Action: Commissioner Lingle moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to continue the case to allow applicant the opportunity to look at re- designing the awnings subject to Commission comments: 1) three awnings were not acceptable, 2) two awnings out to the street are not acceptable, and 3) designing an awning to fit with the adjacent building was not acceptable. It should be designed to go with the applicant's building. One awning could be acceptable if it were properly done. An architectural solution should not be ruled out. Perhaps a combination of some architectural treatment and a reasonable proposal for an awning might be a solution. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 12 `M ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: PP 01-09, C 01-02 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DEBORAH KERR, KERR PROJECT SERVICES, 4655 Cass Street, #200, San Diego, CA 92109 NEAL CASPER, Project Manager, McDonald's Corporation, 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92130 CRHO ARCHITECTURE, 195 South "C" Street, Suite 200, Tustin, CA 92681-1066 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of architectural drawings for McDonald's. LOCATION: Desert Country Plaza, Northwest corner Country Club & Harris ZONE: PC (2) FCOZ Ms. Deborah Kerr explained the original concept had a McDonald's with a Play Place because the market does point to having a Play Place there. However, because of the building size, the Play Place has been eliminated and the building size has been reduced by another 10%. McDonald's has been using dual lane drive-thrus in all their new locations, but will use a single-wide lane here due to site constraints. The landscape buffer has been pushed back along the frontage to a maximum and still try to provide a safe and solid site plan that cars can maneuver around safely while still maintaining fire lanes and backup room. In regards to site planning, Commission Hanson stated the low concrete block walls that would be screening the drive-thru section should have pilasters to break it up periodically and at the ends. The inclusion of a block wall along Country Club with some berming which would shield the parking would be a good addition. Ms. Kerr responded that on-site retention requirements make it difficult to put a wall along Country Club. Engineers required that drywalls be installed so that nuisance water would not be going across the egress at the main entrance on Harris. To screen cars, the desired height would be 36- inch wall and/or landscaping into berms or combinations. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant how they would meet the City's requirement to screen parked cars. The applicant pointed out that the adjacent service industrial property had parking right up on Country Club. Commissioner Gregory responded that shouldn't have GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 13 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES happened as parked cars should be screened. The landscape setback is to soften the impact of whatever is built there. However, the landscape materials should be similar to the adjacent property's. Commissioner Hanson noted the narrow band between the drive aisle and the access into the drive-thru. That band will be a planter with Yellow and Purple Trailing Lantana. She suggested using plants that shield the cars like it is suppose to. It might be nicer if it were just a wall than being a planter that nothing will grow in because it is too narrow. Commissioner Gregory suggested making the planter wider so that some trees or taller shrubs could be planted there. Commissioner Gregory stated that it was getting really thin. If it could be buffered a little more it would be less in someone's face, recognizing that it is on the parking lot side and not seen from the street. The limitation is maintaining the drive aisle on the other side. Was there enough room to widen that planter band as it currently shows a 2' wide planter which is minimal. Over time, they end up not having any plants in them. Commissioner Gregory stated it look better if there were concrete bands on either side to make it look a little more purposeful. In regards to the architecture, Commissioner Vuksic expressed concern about the elements that pop up the highest with "McDonald's" on them. He would like to see that design concept refined - they could be a little lower, a little deeper, so they don't look like billboard signs. Instead of having the archway being as sharp as it is, if it were shallower so the elements could be lowered. Also, have them go further back on to the roof because they are large. The applicant responded the roof- mounted equipment is screened by those parapets. The whole roof is a well, but it is a small roof and there is a lot of equipment. Commissioner Vuksic noted that the elements were seven feet above the main parapet. The back of the tall elements is finished - they are four-sided. He suggested the revision show those elements lowered by about three feet and made deeper. They should look like part of the building, not just attached to it. Commissioner Vuksic asked for more information about the light fixtures around the building as they look rather utilitarian. The applicant responded that the ones he had in mind were modern-themed. He asked for information on samples of wall sconces he could look at around town. The lighting within Desert Country Plaza is located underneath canopies so they are unable to do something similar. Commissioner Vuksic suggested the applicant choose options he liked. It was noted that on the plans for the decorative columns "natural concrete" is noted. In fact, it should read "canterra stone" capping. The GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMINWR010710.min 14 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES foam plaster cornices will match the other cornices around the center. The cornices are topped with 18"-wide flashing. The utility services are located behind the doors on the south elevation. Roof access is internal to the building. Commissioner O'Donnell noted the accommodation of the que line begins at the north (rear) and goes around the building to the pickup window on the west side. He recommended having the overhead trellis protection along the entire west side and wrapping it at least part way around the corner along the north (under the "McDonald's")which will give that corner of the building an improved architectural look. He also suggested having a multi-layered trellis as well as planting bougainvillea to grow up over the trellis to provide more shade. In addition, the landscaping on the west side of the drive-thru needs significant landscaping to shield the cars from the low-lying western sun while they wait in line. Commissioner Hanson suggested the applicants look at the Burger King and what used to be Wendy's in Cathedral City that John Westman did has two of the nicest drive-thrus - the way they look, the way they feel, and the shade. Don't just give the impression of shade, make sure it is really there. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the northwest corner of landscaping should be able to provide significant layering of landscaping to provide shadowing. He would prefer seeing the 3-foot wall on the west side broken up with much more landscaping. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the building had been turned into a sign. He suggested taking the McDonald's logo on the high elements and use that for the "M" in McDonald's in order to eliminate the double signage on those elevations. Since those walls are going to be lowered, those areas will have to be re-done. On the north elevation, where the word "McDonald's", would be a good place on the one panel to put just the logo. He recommended leaving some room for people to look at the architecture and not see just signage. In regards to the landscaping, less massing overall. However, the 70- foot long narrow planter on the north side defines the drive-thru but has nothing more than nine low-lying Lantanas. It had been suggested earlier to attempt to make it wider in order to plant trees and/or shrubs. The 3-foot screening wall on the west side needs some more interest as does the landscaping. This is also true of the 3-foot wall on the east side of the property. Commissioner Gregory asked that the size of the boulders be called out. In most cases, they are singles. A little more imagination should be used. The northwest corner planter should be tiered to provide more shade. Should the applicant elect to put another GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10,2001 MINUTES 3-foot wall along the south side to create the screening of the parked cars from Country Club, the existing landscaping may need to be augmented if the plant material is damaged. Commissioner Gregory recommended the applicant ask the landscape architect to come up with a more appropriate parking lot tree other than the Australian Willow which doesn't provide much shade. Ms. Kerr noted the willows were being used in the rest of Desert Country Plaza. Commissioner Gregory suggested using the willows in the landscape planters where appropriate and a more shade-producing tree in the parking lot area. The parking lot ordinance requires some diversity. All the hybrid Fan Palms are indicated at the same height of 20 feet. It would be more interesting to have them at different heights. Also, since the palms are hybrids a minimum diameter should be specified. Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow applicant opportunity to address Commission comments: Site Planning: 1) The drive-thru block wall should have pilasters to break it up periodically and at the ends, 2) if possible, construct a 3'-high block wall along Country Club to screen parked vehicles. Architecture: 1) Lower the highest parapets by three feet and thicken them to make them look as though they are part of the building, 2) Provide lighting details, 3) the decorative columns are canterra stone, not natural concrete, 4) the overhead trellis should cover the entire drive-thru lane on the west side and wrap around the north west corner; it should be multi-layered, not single; and bougainvilleas should be planted to grow over the trellis, providing more shade;. Signage: 1) On the high elements to be lowered, use the logo "M" to replace the word "McDonald's", 2) on the north elevation, replace the word "McDonald's" with a logo. Landscaping: 1) the narrow planter defining the drive-thru on the north side should be widened and replace Lantana with trees or more substantial shrubs, 2) the 3'-foot walls on the west and east sides should be broken up with much more landscaping particularly on the west side to shield cars from the low-lying western sun; 3) request boulder sizes and put them into groups, 4) the northwest corner planter should be tiered and planted to provide more shadowing, 5) include Hybrid Fan Palms of varying heights and specify a minimum diameter, 6) select at least one additional variety of parking lot tree to provide shade. The Australian Willows can stay near the building. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGM I N\AR01 0710.min 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES 2. CASE NO.: PP 98-5 and TT 28818 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, 6649 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 500, Orlando, FL 32809- 6090 DAVID PUSHKIN, Sr. Project Manager, Shadow Ridge Resort, PO Box 12757, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of revised elevations for 6-plex, 7-plex, and 8-plex buildings at Shadow Ridge LOCATION: Marriott Shadow Ridge, East side of Monterey between Frank Sinatra and Gerald Ford ZONE: PR-5 The Commission was provided with black/white drawings of the plans approved about six months ago as well as colored drawings of the proposed changes in the elevations. Mr. David Puskin, Marriott's Senior Project Manager, explained the project was attempting to find another architectural language within the same vocabulary. Mr. Gary Houston, Houston/Tyner Architects, pointed out what had been changed. To begin, Mr. Houston had been instructed not to change any relationship between any lot lines between the Shadow Ridge buildings and the adjacent neighbors. The height restriction could not be violated. He was able to use the same amount of land as the previous architect and add variety by adding steps in the building to break up the roof lines even more. Commissioner Hanson's initial reaction was that a lot of the details had been removed. Mr. Houston stated that the original design and the modified design that were presented, they are attempting to add detail back in. Now that six of the buildings have been framed, one of the things is the undulation that happens at the roof line is extremely attractive on four of the six buildings. Two of the six buildings, in changing from the existing and the proposed from six months, some critical undulation of the roof line was lost. They are attempting to bring back the undulation and get back to the original concept. Now that they can stand close to some of the elements, they seem to have extreme mass. They are trying to bring it down to more of a pedestrian scale. Commissioner Hanson agreed with those statements, but overall, things have been done with moldings and embellishments which bring it to a more intimate scale. Mr. Houston pointed out that the proposed GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 17 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES tower elements were identical to that of the original architect and he wants to get back to that look. Commissioner O'Donnell stated there was a difference. He pointed out in the 6-unit villa the window mullions, casement windows, and some chimneys have been eliminated from the existing to the proposed. Plate glass is now shown which is a big difference. Commissioner Vuksic agreed pointing out that the arched windows have been replaced by rectangular windows with a sliver of an arch over them. Mr. Pushkin explained the Marriott's reason for making the changes was not financial motivation. It was to get three building types designed and permitted and put on the property. He stated that what was out there did not have mullions. They think the buildings look wonderful. If the Commission were to go out to see the buildings being built, it would like them. Mr. Houston stated that now that they have had an opportunity to walk the spaces, one of the things they are looking at is the outside corridor. Currently, the front of the buildings have a very solid mass which creates a very dark corridor. They are attempting to create openings for more natural light. From a pedestrian view point, they are adding articulation at various points in order to provide some lightness at the roof and allow natural light into the corridor. Commissioner Gregory noted that the existing plans have a break up of the roof line. Now the roof runs continuous except for the center portion which seems to be dropped a little. Mr. Houston responded the proposed elevation had more undulation from a pedestrian view. There are 2-1/2 foot projections and a trellis that provided even more projection. The building materials are not being changed. Commissioner O'Donnell noted the existing buildings have open balconies balanced by vertical elements on the rear elevation which face the golf course. Mr. Houston responded that on the rear elevations the view is of individual balconies, a method of supporting those balconies, and adding more structure. Esthetically, it improves the project. On the front side, when you walk down the corridors, they are long and dark. They are attempting to illuminate a lot of the mass that allows natural light in. That's why columns have been added on one side (the rear) and taken away on the other (front). Commissioner Hanson stated the changes have simplified the building enough that it has a different character than the existing buildings. There are things that can be done to the corridor by creating narrow spaces that open back up within the corridor to make it seem less long. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 18 SWO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Houston stated they had done that with undulations that change the width of the corridor. Commissioner O'Donnell stated the newly created vacuous spaces makes the buildings look more commercial than residential. Commissioner Hanson felt they didn't have enough information, ie, the wrought iron detailing, the change in the windows. It doesn't have the character of the original version with the arched windows. It appears that they have been taken out almost everywhere. Commissioner Gregory asked if it was a detail issue. Commissioner Hanson responded that it was a matter of carrying through of the detailing of the project as it was originally intended. Each elevation has issues that need to be looked at. The buildings are massive and it is in the details that put them more on a human scale. Those plate glass windows look as though they are approximately 7x6-feet. Mr. Houston responded that the windows would have the center mullions which are not shown, just not the little 6x6 mullions. Perhaps, that was something they should have done. Commissioner O'Donnell re-stated that it was all of the detail that makes the finish on these massive buildings. On some of the elevations where you can see beyond the roof line, where there is a ridge that comes up and adds to the interest and modulation of the horizontal ridge. All those things are of concern to the Commission. Mr. Pushkin proposed getting some clear direction on what they could do to come back and show the Commission something that would be more conducive. Commissioner Gregory stated, that in fairness to the applicant, the Commission was not looking at a total change in the product or the design. But, more detail information is being requested. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that members of the Commission make an on-site visit as he would like to see the current stage of construction and get a feel for concerns the Marriott has and the reasons why it is making this proposal. Commissioners O'Donnell, Vuksic, and Hanson will join Mr. Smith and Mr. Pushkin at 8:00 a.m., Thursday, July 121h, at the Shadow Ridge Sales Office. Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson, to continue the case to allow applicant the opportunity to address Commission comments: 1) break up the horizontal roof line, 2) add mullions to the windows, 3) provide additional details on wrought iron and the change in the windows. Three-member subcommittee to meet on-site. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION JULY 10, 2001 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER GAPlanning\Gale Santee\wpdocs\AGMIN\AR010710.min 20